British Upper Chamber

[JohnFKennedy]

What does everyone think?

Would you prefer a democratically elected upper chamber or the current meritocratic system or even a return to the days of hereditary peers.

[The Dowager Mod]

#3

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have two ideas: one is a mix between elected Members and appointed Members (with a strong balance in favour of the elected Members).

My other idea is to have the Lords directly elected... on the 1945 Constituency boundaries.

[Richard]

#3.  Bring back the hereditary peers.  You're not a republic.  You're a monarchy, and an elected parliament must be balanced by unelected nobles.

[J. J.]

Bring back Hereditary Peers, but only let them vote on acts to prolong Parliament.  Permit them to participate in debate and offer amendments, but not vote on most questions.

There are numerous Lords (and a few Ladies) that have a lifelong interest in some aspects of legislation and are exceptionally expert.  Some, because of family ties dating back to 15th Century, will take a long view of issues.  Give this talent pool a chance to advise, but not legislate.  Permit only life peers to vote on most issues.

Require, with a few exceptions, that no government can recommend more peers than one per three seats in the House, per year.

[Joe Republic]

#3.  Bring back the hereditary peers.  You're not a republic.  You're a monarchy, and an elected parliament must be balanced by unelected nobles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[bullmoose88]

Completely Elected.

[J. J.]

#3.  Bring back the hereditary peers.  You're not a republic.  You're a monarchy, and an elected parliament must be balanced by unelected nobles.

I like the Royals more than anyone, unless they are named Camilla, but could you picture Charles governing!

[Peter]

There are numerous Lords (and a few Ladies) that have a lifelong interest in some aspects of legislation and are exceptionally expert.  Some, because of family ties dating back to 15th Century, will take a long view of issues.  Give this talent pool a chance to advise, but not legislate.

Most of these "expert" hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the House as a part of the 92 rump or have actually been given life peerages so that they can continue to give their advice.

If it were up to me, I would do the following:

1. Take all the judicial functions of the House and give them to a Supreme Court and then there's no need for the Law Lords, though senior Judges should still be able to sit in the Lords after retirement.
2. Set the number of Lords at 600. Split it as 440 elected, 160 appointed.
3. Elect the 440 from the Euro-regions using the PR method for 8 year terms with staggered elections; Elections every 2 years with 110 peers up in each electoral cycle.
4. The remaining 160 appointed Lords should be appointed for being experts in a field, e.g. Lord Winston (Professor of Medicine and former Chief Medical Officer), or widely recognised community leaders, e.g. Religious leaders of the various faiths.
5. No more Lords Spiritual because they now get appointed under 4.
6. Give the Lords an actual legislative veto, though the Commons may override such a veto with a supermajority (say 3/4 of the Commons), though the Lords should still consider itself bound by the Salisbury Convention that it doesn't stop manifesto legislation.

[Silent Hunter]

I have two ideas: one is a mix between elected Members and appointed Members (with a strong balance in favour of the elected Members).

My other idea is to have the Lords directly elected... on the 1945 Constituency boundaries.

I support Al's first idea.

[Keystone Phil]

Iain Duncan Smith for House of Lords! 


Ok, go back to your debate. 

[phk]

Just keep it as is.

[Joe Republic]

I like Peter's idea, but don't you think if you're going to change it you should also change the name from the House of Lords?

[Platypus]

elected, of course, preferably by a proportional method.

[TomC]

Basically abolished with some sort of Constitutional Council or Judicial council to take over the judicial responsibilities.

Otherwise elected.

[JohnFKennedy]

Basically abolished with some sort of Constitutional Council or Judicial council to take over the judicial responsibilities.

Otherwise elected.

I personally think abolishing it would be a bad idea as it basically grants the majority party in the Commons the power to do what it wants when it wants, the House of Lords, while it cannot veto anymore, can serve as a delay and those there on merit can actually be helpful to the legislative process.

I personally don't have a huge problem with a meritocratic House of Lords, though I do want the last remnants of hereditary peers gone, if they are there still on merit, give them a life peerage.

I would like to see democracy brought to the House of Lords and think a mixture of the two could be good, though the issue being it creates a two tier system. I personally don't see this as too much of a problem as we have always really had a two tier system in the House of Lords.

[Democratic Hawk]

This is what I'd do:

1) The House of Lords would have 200 members
2) There would be 50 super-constituencies, each with two members (i.e. 100) directly elected - with one member elected every two or three years by preferential voting until one candidate has 50% plus one
3) The other 100 members would be divided among the four constituent parts of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) according to population. They would be chosen from a party list in accordance with each party's share of the total vote. Allocating it this way, ensures that nationalists and unionists secure fair representation in the House of Lords

As far as the legal system goes, there would be a Supreme Court in each constituent part of the UK, as well as a Supreme Court for the UK as a whole. Members would be appointed by the Monarch or her representative on the advice of the respective First Ministers and the Prime Minister subject to assembly/parliamentary scrutiny
 
Dave

[JohnFKennedy]

This is what I'd do:

1) The House of Lords would have 200 members
2) There would be 50 super-constituencies, each with two members (i.e. 100) directly elected - with one member elected every two or three years by preferential voting until one candidate has 50% plus one
3) The other 100 members would be divided among the four constituent parts of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) according to population. They would be chosen from a party list in accordance with each party's share of the total vote. Allocating it this way, ensures that nationalists and unionists secure fair representation in the House of Lords

As far as the legal system goes, there would be a Supreme Court in each constituent part of the UK, as well as a Supreme Court for the UK as a whole. Members would be appointed by the Monarch or her representative on the advice of the respective First Ministers and the Prime Minister subject to assembly/parliamentary scrutiny
 
Dave

That sounds very much to me like Alternative Vote Plus.